Campus Charade for ?

We have all played the game of Charades. You try and represent what you are without actually telling people what you are or without actually being who or what you are representing. You do this in hopes that your actions will lead people to discover who you are trying to represent but in the end knowing you are in fact someone or something else. Sound confusing even though you have played the game? Well it is.

So is the recent decision of Campus Crusade for Christ to change its name (at the advice of a marketing firm) to cru. The argument for the name change lie in the fact that a minority of people found the name offensive - specifically "Christ" and "Crusade". This evangelically and politically correct way of thinking is steeped in a mentality found in Paul's statement in I Corinthians 9 where he states:

"I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

Paul's statements here have been turned into a theology by modern day evangelicals; particularly the emergent church and those who have similar practices whether admitting it or not. Such efforts have obvious shortcomings evident in an unspoken "the ends justifies the means" attitude, but this is not the most insidious problem in my mind. The most insidious and deceptive problem lies in how the modern day evangelical church (which does not consider itself emergent, but does consider itself fully biblical) has such a shallow notion of "save". It seems to me that salvation these days is viewed as primarily a one time spiritual and emotional event. This mentality (whether spoken, unspoken, subtle, overt, admitted, not admitted) leaves us with a definition of winning that is instantaneous at a specific point in time.

But Paul's idea of "saving" or "winning" most certainly encompasses more than this and certainly engages more than just the spirit and the emotions, and I would argue that the emotions are not even primary to his concerns. How many times did we see Paul arguing and debating in his attempts to win Greeks? Indeed, it seems that this was Paul's primary method of "winning" people to Christ. Thus, the winning" or "saving" primarily had a "mental/theological" aspect to it that was not instantaneous, but rather a "process". Paul "won" some to Christ over time through reasoning.

Even if Paul's statement is to be taken at face value and fleshed out as modern day evangelicals do, where is the balancing theology of the church being an institution "set apart" and "a light on a hill". These are not concepts of blending in with society or whomever you are trying to "win", but rather of bring distinct, noticeable, and noticeably different.

So what about the Campus Crusade name change? The first problem is obvious to me: why do you need a marketing firm to make this decision? When I think of marketing firms, I think of an entity who's main purpose is to sell a product, to make a product more "sellable", and to help who it is serving to become more successful. It just seems that CRU is more concerned with "end results" and being successful -and this through subterfuge rather than putting a stake in the ground by stating who they are (which is my second concern). They seem more worried about "offending" a minority of people than with biblically "offending" people with the Gospel.

Has evangelism really turned into a game of charades where you try not to reveal who you really are to those you wish to reach so that they may become someone who will in turn become someone who will not want to reveal who they really are to others? It just seems certain parts of evangelical Christianity have started to become more concerned with being productive and end results than with the unabashed honest truth about who we are as Christians, the process of sanctification, and that salvation is more from God that us. We cannot get sucked into the illusion that we as evangelists are the primary force behind salvation putting techniques and philosophies of reaching the lost ahead of the Almighty God Himself. God told Moses to tell Pharaoh "I am that I am" (Yahweh) sent him. It was meant to offend and fly directly in the face of unbelief. There was no thought as to how Pharaoh would receive the message. I don't think Jonah, who was given the message from God, worried about the approach of his message to the Assyrians.

I am not talking about being completely insensitive to the listener or to the person or persons you are trying to witness to, but I am asking the question - is truth enough to bring about salvation, it is the primary means, or do we really need more than the truth (techniques and marketing firms) to reach people for Christ?

Seed That Falls Upon the Rock

I have wondered over the last decade as to what type of Christians the evangelical church is producing. Now, the idea of pondering on this in a lot of contemporary, evangelical Christian circles would be deemed as "unloving" and "judgmental", and responded to with notions that "we all fall short and cannot measure up to God" (which, in essence, creates an image where God's perfection skews the graph so much that there is no distinction between sinner and saint). Indeed, it seems the mentality often becomes "let's get the short term gain (afterall, might not Christ be coming soon) and not worry about the long term effect". "I mean, who after becoming a Christian would turn away completely and, besides, they have their entire lives to grow in Christ - they'll catch on eventually."

Then I stumbled onto this article in Christianity Today -http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/november/27.40.html?start=5

This article talks about how 20-30 somethings are leaving the church at higher rates than normal. I can't help but wonder whether or not part of the reason is that a lack of discipleship and Christian education in the church for the sake of evangelism and ministry (and wanting to make people feel good about themselves) produces Christians similar to those described in the Parable of the Sower; where the seed fell among the rock, grew up, and then withered away (they had no foundation). Hardcore evangelical Christianity doesn’t seem willing in some cases to dial back its outreach and ministries to establish a wholistic and balanced church. The notion of doing so seems even blasphemous, but when Christian education and discipleship suffer, we don’t produce generational Christians. Thus, those who come to Christ in what has tended to become a more emotional based conversion rather than a theological based conversion, may find it difficult to maintain a faith that is based on emotion rather than fact, and a faith that is propogated only to the point of conversion and not to the point of sanctification. A faith that becomes a point in time rather than a journey. With no foundation, seed that falls upon the rock grows quickly and dies.

Has evangelical Christianity tended to throw the theological baby out with the unemotion belief in God for the sake of being seeker sensitive to a culture that makes decisions based more on emotion than fact.

Why do churches not see how the pendulum of error has swung from the primarily inwardly focused church to the primarily outwardly focused church? Where is the balance?

The Chief End of Man - To Love the Poor & Needy and Evangelize Them Forever

I heard a sermon this past Sunday where the pastor is going through Catechisms, Covenants, and Confessions. It was very refreshing as today's evangelical church has tended to become all about emotion and evangelism. Not that I believe the Westminster Confession to be all encompassing or infallible, but I do believe there is a lot of truth in its statement that the chief end of man is "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever." Yet today's evangelical church seems at least in practice to turn this statement into the chief end of man being "To love the poor and needy and evangelize them forever." I see more and more of a tendency for evangelical Christianity to become an end in itself; that notions of having a holistic church take a back seat to ministry and evangelism - enough so to where church resemble social organizations more than a church, but would deny that this is so. It just seems like the pendulum has swung in a lot of cases from a completely inwardly focused church during the 70's to a completely outwardly focused church in the 00's. Hence the need for truly balanced, holistic, and properly faith centered beliefs that guide the church as to what its central behavior should emulate and encapsulate. Basically, foundational truths upon which the church should base its operations.

I just wonder sometimes if evangelism and ministry have sometimes become a sort of false asceticism whereby those who purport it do so at the cost of having a balanced church and as another means to earn their salvation.